Microkernel vs monolithic: which one is better? can we expect a linux kernel fork without bloat?

Microkernel vs monolithic: which one is better? can we expect a linux kernel fork without bloat?

Attached: 1920px-OS-structure2.svg.png (1920x491, 70K)

Other urls found in this thread:

connect.linaro.org.s3.amazonaws.com/sfo17/Presentations/SFO17-417-SEL4.pdf
barrelfish.org/
barrelfish.org/publications/TN-000-Overview.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate
realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=65915&curpostid=65936
blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

why those two completely unrelated questions on single line?

Microkernel for sure:
connect.linaro.org.s3.amazonaws.com/sfo17/Presentations/SFO17-417-SEL4.pdf

Attached: 2019-06-30-131633_1099x731_scrot.png (1099x731, 160K)

>unrelated

Are you asking if there will be a Linux kernel fork that turns it into a microkernel system?
Because the answer to that is most likely a hard no.

l4linux
but there is no relation between amount of code, drivers, tools, APIs, ... and if the OS has microkernel. the stuff would just be in userspace, not non-existing.

A "microkernel" moves more parts into the userland where it tends to not cause as many stability problems but a "monolithic" kernel can technically do all the same. The distinction is pure wankery, and anything claiming to be a "hybrid" kernel is complete bullshit.

what bloat is there in linux kernel

Too bad every processor is vulnerable thanks to (((them)))

Hybrid/Multi master race. barrelfish.org/
Also no, as someone that has looked into making as small of a linux distro as possible, it will always be bloated.
Most people on here argue and bitch about stupid things like PC parts they don't plan on owning, do you really expect an intelligent, informed decision about something actually complex?

What is Barrelfish OS and please describe it's core structure then. You actually know what you are talking about, so I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

I'm reading through the docs but so far no mentions of anything "hybrid"

Never heard of it but I think it's claiming to be a microkernel. I'm not sure anyone even knows what a hybrid kernel even is but I don't think that's one.

I don't really mean that microkernels are bullshit or don't exist I mean that there's nothing a microkernel can do that a monolithic kernel cannot also do. The only reason microkernels have not taken off is that they're terribly inefficient. If they weren't any OS using a monolithic kernel could just move everything to the userland just like a microkernel does and everything would be a microkernel then. The problem with a microkernel design is every time you'd need to access hardware you'd have to context switch which adds overhead to everything. Microkernels have their place in very high reliability applications but its unlikely they'll ever be necessary in just casual computing where the worst thing the user faces is an occasional annoying crash but where there's no risk to life or livelihood from that crashing

Why do faggots on Jow Forums who have no idea what they are taking about act like they know what they are talking about?
>macOS
>iOS
Uses micro kernels

OSX/iOS claim to use a "hybrid" kernel called XNU. I consider a hybrid kernel to be basically a monolithic kernel with some things moved to the userland for stability reasons.

>that they're terribly inefficient
>every time you'd need to access hardware you'd have to context switch
those two are FUD bullcraps that uneducated people keep repeating
There are ways to massively optimize kernels - actual instruction count and proper caching. The way to optimize kernel for caching is to put all hot code and hot data together into the same memory page. Since microkernels are very observable and predictable, identifying all that hot code is more than possible. Then the instruction count - microkernels tend to have smaller API so there is less work to do.
Logically, monolitic kernels are always faster, but realistically the margin is under 1%.
Then drivers - even on monolithic kernels, userspace polling drivers tend to be faster than kernelspace interrupt-driven drivers.

exokernel is better, somewhat similar to microkernel.

Exokernel.

You're thinking about exoskeleton.

There aren't many videos, but there was a thread talking about hobbyist oses and such, when this was posted. It's supposed to a multikernel OS.
"Barrelfish is “multikernel” operating system [3]: it consists of a small kernel running on each core (one
kernel per core), and while rest of the OS is structured as a distributed system of single-core processes
atop these kernels. Kernels share no memory, even on a machine with cache-coherent shared RAM,
and the rest of the OS does not use shared memory except for transferring messages and data between
cores, and booting other cores. Applications can use multiple cores and share address spaces (and
therefore cache-coherent shared memory) between cores, but this facility is provided by user-space
runtime libraries."
barrelfish.org/publications/TN-000-Overview.pdf
It has alot of big name sponsors (Intel, Oracle, Micro$, etc), and without going into /x/ territory, I bet this is used with intel's ME and such.

Don't monolithic kernels perform better?

youre a clown. Almost every user function is rewritten in the kernel, ie. kprintf vs fprintf

Extensible Macrokernels. Microkernels are slow bloat because context switches are slow.
We are living in a world where people are ready to even run programs in kernel space just to avoid those, and microkernels exist to increase their number.

Microkernels are like functional programming: Loved only by retard dogmatists who have never produced anything of value, while the pragmatists that write the software that actually powers the world don't use them. Still, the dogmatists, for some reason, believe to have the high ground.
Pathetic.

>I’m full of shit, got called on it, so I’m just going to redefine terms
I bet you have lots of friends.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate
Funny how it seems that even though Torvalds concedes that theoretically, microkernels are more "modern" than monolithic, when you get in the real world, systems with microkernels are the full blown dinosaurs.

I'm not redefining terms a hybrid kernel is just some made up bullshit. XNU was at one time based on Mach but Apple turned it back into a monolithic kernel because either it was too slow. Or they can't code. I suppose either is possible.

see also:
realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=65915&curpostid=65936

>By: Linus Torvalds ([email protected]), May 9, 2006 8:16 am
>As to the whole "hybrid kernel" thing - it's just marketing.
It's "oh, those microkernels had good PR, how can we try
to get good PR for our working kernel? Oh, I know,
let's use a cool name and try to imply that it has all the
PR advantages that that other system has"

blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2016/01/01/0/

Attached: 1557378582009.png (1920x1080, 2.04M)

So why is GNU Hurd worthless?

GNU Hurd is worthless because GNU basically abandoned it once Linux hit the scene. If Linux/Linus didn't exist, Hurd would be further along. Maybe not near where Linux is today, but certainly not in its current state in this timeline, where it's more of a "research OS" that's in an only slightly more usable state than Plan 9

It is. They use an ill fit 1st gen microkernel (GNU Mach) that's slooooooooow as fuck. Attempts to port it to L4 and later other microkernels failed. And they never addressed the fundamental problems in the hurd critique paper.
It's basically a shitshow. Look elsewhere. I suggest Genode.org.

Attached: 1552280759144.png (1920x1080, 1.49M)

jesus, you never even gave actual information as a reason. Imagine being that much of an autistic elitist without any brain power to actually be capable of saying WHY they are better.
You're the pathetic one, double digit IQ autistic fuck.

>muh slow
Wrong.

...

microkernel = more reliable but slower
monolithic = faster but more crash prone

What if we ran everything in usermode and didn't have a kernel? Would that be retarded?

Microkernels are the future, but there's just more money in monolithic Linux right now. There probably won't be anything even coming close in funding or functionality until the Next Big Thing™ comes around (i.e. successor to the smartphone) that uses a free software microkernel.

How is that even different from monolithic then

Attached: 1518322159422.gif (480x264, 1.54M)

>5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5.
Always makes me laugh.

Google is working on just that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia

I'm not really even sure how a microkernel is any different from running a monolithic kernel OS inside of a hypervisor. In order for the software to be robust enough that they cannot affect each other even if one "crashes" they essentially have to be self contained operating systems themselves. From my point of view a microkernel is basically a hypervisor that runs a bunch of operating systems. When they have to communicate back and forth they're basically just clustering.

So is Huawei. They have a team working on a microkernel-based os, with e.g. people from helenos.

There has to be a "kernel" of some kind but it doesn't have to be an actual operating system. It can be the only software that runs but it will be run in kernel mode by default. User mode is set up by the kernel for software that runs underneath it

Sauce? I'm trying to keep up with all these new-age microkernel projects.

Lookup:
Jakub Jermář
Martin Děcký
+ huawei

Attached: 1545770540853.png (1920x1080, 1.35M)

Finally someone that gets it

Kernels are nigger technology

1 million of lines of pure buggy shit

Why do you need funding for microkernels if almost all microkernels can be implemented today by coping the code under BSD license? The only thing you might need is drivers from the linux kernel

We can thank (((them))) for fucking it. Kike rats ruin all of the White Man's creations.

Attached: 1560902803952.jpg (726x901, 160K)

I just want a microkernel running underneath GuixSD so I can keep my kernel up to date without losing uptime. Is that so much to ask?

Linus destroyed his kernel just for the sake of making money with his meme foundation

Multikernel, especially with all the glued-together shit coming out.

but the linux "kernel" runs as userspace program

Monolithic, I don't trust random developers with good code.

>bloat
You can configure and compile linux *exactly* the way you want.
Or is your idea of a kernel just malloc and a scheduler?

but micro kernel isnt slow. more code == more problems

but you trust thousand of random developers to write a monolithic kernel

Yes, there is order in BSDs and linux.